Picking up where we left off last week on the issue of “The Separation of Church and State”, we want to continue with our final episode on this important subject. Last week we noted, “that today’s court opinions are based on pieces of opinions which are cited as precedents, where no precedent actually exists”. We illustrated the point with Justice Hugo Black’s use of Thomas Jefferson’s obscure statement, “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”, in a majority opinion which set a precedent for all rulings that have followed on this issue.

Today we want to look at a more contemporary case which relied heavily on the precedents set down beforehand in one opinion or another. In the 1992, Lee v. Wiseman, majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote,

“The undeniable fact is that the school district’s supervision and control of a high school graduation ceremony places public pressure, as well as peer pressure, on attending students to stand as a group or, at least, maintain respectful silence during the invocation and benediction. This pressure, though subtle and indirect, can be as real as any overt compulsion”

This was a case brought against a Providence, Rhode Island school for inviting clergy to offer invocation and benediction prayers. Kennedy said these prayers violated the establishment clause and was particularly concerned with the coercive nature of these prayers.

Mark R. Levin, quotes in, Men In Black, a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing involving Professor Vincent Phillip Munoz who says:

“In Lee v. Weisman, the Court eliminated non-denominational invocations and benedictions at public school graduations. According to Kennedy, to ask public school children to stand respectfully while others pray ‘psychologically coerces’ religious practice. In 2000, the Court prohibited the Texas tradition of non-denominational prayer before high school football games, because, it said, some fans might feel like ‘outsiders’. Thus interpreted, the ‘coercion test’ secures ‘the right not to feel uncomfortable’ because of others publicly expressing their religious beliefs.”

Levin states concerning this testimony:

“So the nonexistent constitutional right not to feel uncomfortable trumped, in the Court’s logic, the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion which Providence, Rhode Island, had exercised for a very long time.”

In finishing up on this issue, we would only remind you of your constitutional right to the free exercise of your religion. That right exists according to the constitution wherever you might be, whether on public property or private.

Also, when Christmas rolls around, and the legal proceedings begin again by your non-believing minority fellow citizens, just remember, their minority rights are more important than yours, because activist liberal Supreme Court Justices say so.

We are no longer governed by the Constitution, the Legislative and Executive Branches of our government, but by the men and women of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Let us hope and pray for a change back to constitutionality in the near future.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 30th, 2005 at 11:42 am and is filed under Saturday Evening Judicial Review Post. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Tags: Supreme Court, Church and State, Lee v. Wiseman, free exercise, establishment clause